<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (12) TMI 662 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163394</link>
    <description>A small-scale industrial unit purchased in auction with existing plant and machinery was held not to qualify as a new unit for exemption under the Karnataka sales tax notification. The notification under section 8A(1)(b) applied only to tiny and small-scale industrial units meeting the prescribed conditions and expressly excluded units using old, used or second-hand machinery, as well as units formed by expansion, diversification, modernisation, or a new name after closure of an earlier unit. Because the unit had previously existed under another concern and retained the same machinery after transfer, the decisive factor was the character of the unit, not the change in ownership. The revisional authority was justified in treating the appellate order as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue under section 22A(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:18:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 662 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163394</link>
      <description>A small-scale industrial unit purchased in auction with existing plant and machinery was held not to qualify as a new unit for exemption under the Karnataka sales tax notification. The notification under section 8A(1)(b) applied only to tiny and small-scale industrial units meeting the prescribed conditions and expressly excluded units using old, used or second-hand machinery, as well as units formed by expansion, diversification, modernisation, or a new name after closure of an earlier unit. Because the unit had previously existed under another concern and retained the same machinery after transfer, the decisive factor was the character of the unit, not the change in ownership. The revisional authority was justified in treating the appellate order as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue under section 22A(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>